4 ms·

Well, why? If someone uses GPL only, it means they are not looking for money, but is more of a choice to not use more permissive licences. Dual licensing does n

Well, why? If someone uses GPL only, it means they are not looking for money, but is more of a choice to not use more permissive licences. Dual licensing does not solves anything for them.

rwmj 9y ago
Wait what? I write GPL only software for a living and I certainly am looking for money from it. It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself.
- icebraining 9y ago
  It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself. Even that is perfectly fine. The company I previously worked for did exactly that: sell AGPL-licensed software to other businesses.
daurnimator 9y ago
Because when I choose a GPL license, I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me. If all I get out of a long court case is finally seeing their code, then it's not worth it for me to sue, and it's not worth it for them to comply with the license. Instead: if I dual license it: when they don't comply with the GPL license, I can sue them for damages: which makes things a hell of a lot more appealing for a lawyer to take my case, and not as much as a waste of my time.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  "dual-licensed" is normally used to describe 2 Open Source licenses that user can choose from. [Edited for clarity]
  - rmccue 9y ago
    I believe here that the use of "dual license" here is about open source + paid proprietary, not two open source licenses. The idea being that you can claim damages.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    normally is a stretch. The term applies to all forms of dual licensing, and dual free and proprietary might be more common, just maybe not in your particular experience.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  > I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me You should be clear that the GPL has no such upstream requirement. Changes only need to be passed on downstream. It's pass-it-on, not give-back. It often works out that upstream gets access to the same channel that receives the changes, but that's not necessarily the case, strictly.

Well, why? If someone uses GPL only, it means they are not looking for money, but is more of a choice to not use more permissive licences. Dual licensing does not solves anything for them.

rwmj 9y ago

Wait what? I write GPL only software for a living and I certainly am looking for money from it. It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself.

icebraining 9y ago
It's just that I don't get the money by selling you the software itself. Even that is perfectly fine. The company I previously worked for did exactly that: sell AGPL-licensed software to other businesses.

daurnimator 9y ago

Because when I choose a GPL license, I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me. If all I get out of a long court case is finally seeing their code, then it's not worth it for me to sue, and it's not worth it for them to comply with the license. Instead: if I dual license it: when they don't comply with the GPL license, I can sue them for damages: which makes things a hell of a lot more appealing for a lawyer to take my case, and not as much as a waste of my time.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
"dual-licensed" is normally used to describe 2 Open Source licenses that user can choose from. [Edited for clarity]
- rmccue 9y ago
  I believe here that the use of "dual license" here is about open source + paid proprietary, not two open source licenses. The idea being that you can claim damages.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  normally is a stretch. The term applies to all forms of dual licensing, and dual free and proprietary might be more common, just maybe not in your particular experience.
quadrangle 9y ago
> I do it because I want anyone that uses that code to share their changes back with me You should be clear that the GPL has no such upstream requirement. Changes only need to be passed on downstream. It's pass-it-on, not give-back. It often works out that upstream gets access to the same channel that receives the changes, but that's not necessarily the case, strictly.